H  B 


m  Ml 

George  Davidson 


Professor  of  Geography 
University  of  California 


Population  of  Great  Cities 


Growth  a 


nsii 


^iFT 


1 


GROWTH    and   DENSITY 


of 

POPULATION 

of 

GREAT   CITIES. 


A  Paper  read  by 

E.   L.   CORTHELL,    Sc.  D. 

Before  the  American  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Science. 

Washington,  D.  C. 
January,  1903. 


1903. 


vMxA^'iWn    jAerMMi^ 


c^7 


GROWTH      AND      DENSITY      OF   POPULATION      OF 

GREAT  CITIES  OF    OVER  ONE  MILLION 

INHABITANTvS. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  held  at  Springfield, 
Mass.,  in  1895,  the  author  presented  a  paj^er  to  Sec- 
tion "I,"  with  a  similar  title.  The  jjresent  paper  gives 
the  necessar^^  summary  of  the  former  paper,  and  brings 
the  curves  and  data  down  generally  to  the  census  of 
1900,  also  corrects  any  errors  in  the  former  paper. 

In  1886  and  1887,  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering,  civil  engineer, 
and  at  that  time  chairman  of  a  commission  for  solving 
the  problem  of  water  supply  and  drainage  of  the  city 
of  Chicago,  compiled  some  statistics  and  made  a  dia- 
gram showing  the  curve  of  growth  of  population  of 
several  cities  in  the  United  States.  About  the  year  1890, 
for  the  purpose  of  presenting  in  a  ])rofessionaI  report 
on  a  rapid  transit  .question  in  Chicago  a  comparison 
between  the  several  cities  shown  on  Mr.  Hering' s  dia- 
gram, the  writer  extended  the  diagram  to  a  more  recent 
date.  During  1894-  he  obtained,  by  an  extended  cor- 
respondence, the  necessary  information,  and  plotted  on 
a  new  diagram  the  curves  of  growth  of  pojDvdation  of 
several  cities  of  the  world  numbering  over  1,000,000  in- 
habitants at  the  present  time.  These  curves  were  ex- 
tended forward,  as  will  be  seen  by  an  examination  of 
the  diagram.  Many  interesting  and  instructive  features 
were  presented  by  this  comparison,  and  the  value  of 
the  results  tTius  presented  graphically  were  at  once  ap- 
preciated by  an  examination  of  the  diagram. 

The  density  of  the  population  of  each  city,  so  far  as 
it  could  be  ascertained,  was  also  shown  graphically  by 
squares  of  various  sizes. 

The  information  was  obtained  from  official  sources 
through  the  author's  correspondents,  all  of  whom  kindly 
interested  themselves  to  comply  with  his  requests  for 
data,  and  to  whom  he  is  largely  indebted  for  the  relia- 
ble character  of  the  figures. 


i7iJi89836 


As  each  city  has  its  peculiarities  in  history,  growth, 
density  and  many  other  features,  it  is  necessary^ to  take 
up  each  separately  in  order  to  fully  understand  and 
appreciate  the  curves  on  the  diagram. 

Before,  however,  proceeding  to  the  cities  separately, 
there  should  be  given  the  data  which  form  the  basis 
for  the  extension  of  the  curves  for  the  last  decade.  These 
have  all  been  obtained  from  official  sources  and  are 
believed  to  be  correct. 

If  the  diagram  is  compared  with  that  of  1895,  jDub- 
lished  in  Vol.  XLIV,  page  359  et  seq.,  it  will  be  seen 
that  some  of  the  cvirves  for  ])eriods  previous  to  1890 
have  been  slightly  changed.  This  was  done  to  make 
them  conform  to  the  official  figures  received  subsequent 
to  the  publication  of  the  former  paper. 

An  atteinpt  has  been  made  to  give  in  each  case  the 
metropolitan  population,  regardless  of  suburban  city 
lines  or  even  State  lines,  as  in  the  case  of  New  York, 
where  those  populations  of  New  Jersey,  which  are  really 
a  part  of  the  metropolitan  population  of  Greater  New 
York,  are  included. 

In  the  case  of  Berlin,  a  personal  visit  to  that  city  last 
summer  convinced  the  writer  that  his  former  basis  of 
population  was  misleading,  and  that  there  should  be 
a  "Greater  Berlin"  to  include  the  twelve  separate  cities 
or  districts,  which,  while  an  integral  part  of  the  metro- 
politan population,  have  separate  municipal  govern- 
ments. There  are  twelve  of  those  municipalities  which 
are  not  included  in  the  population  of  Berlin,  but  are 
included  in  Greater  Berlin.  The  admirable  street-car 
system  has  made  the  population  practicalh^  a  unit. 

The  data  for  the  diagram  for  plotting  the  curves  of 
the  last  decade  are  as  per  the  following  table,  to  which 
has  been  appended,  as  a  matter  of  interest,  the  popula- 
tions of  Germany  and  the  United  States,  by  which  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  former  is  growing  at  a  rate  of  about 
16  per  cent,  per  decade  and  the  latter  20  per  cent. 

DATA  FOR  DIAGRAM. 

London  1900  4,589,129 

Greater  London 1900  6,652,145 

Paris  (Greater) 1896  3,308,007 

1901  3,599,991 

St.  Petersburg  1890  954,400 

1897  1,132,677 


BtM-lin  1893  1,(54.0,994. 

1895  1,678,912 

1898  1,801,261 
1900  1,884,157 

Greater  Berlin 1880  1,245,279 

1890  1,84.8,018 

1895  2,112,366 

1900  2,512,523 

Vienna 1894-  1,4-80,572 

1899  1,639,811 
Philadel])hia 1890  1,105,277 

1900  1,369,632 
New       York        ( Manhattan 

Borough) 1890  1,44-1,216 

1900  1,850,093 

Greater  New  York  1890  2,799,242 

1900  3,833^999 

Greater   Chicago 1890  1,191,922 

1900  1,838,735 

GERMANY 1880  45,234,061 

1890  49,428,470 

1895  52,279,901 

1900  56,345,014 

UNITED  STATES 1880  50,155,783 

1890  62,622,250 

1900  76,303,387 

LONDON. 

For  the  information  of  those  who  are  not  famihar 
with  the  ])ecuHar  geographical  conditions  of  the  popula- 
tion, the  following  data  need  to  be  given  in  order  to 
have  a  full  understanding  of  the  subject  : 

Area  in 
LoNiioN  WITHIN  Various  Boundaries.  statute  acres. 

Within   the   registrar-general's    tables    of   mor- 
tality   74,672 

Within  the  limits  of  the  count}-  of  London  75,442 

London  school-board  district  75,442 

City  of  London,  within  the  municipal  and  par- 
liamentary limits 671 

Central  criminal  court  district 269,140 

Metropolitan   parliamentary   boroughs    (exclu- 
sive of  the  city  of  London) 74,771 

Same  (including  the  city  of  London) 85,442 

Metropolitan  police  district  (not  including  citv 

of  London) '.  442,750 

Metropolitan  and  citA^  police  districts 443,421 


The  metropolitan  police  district  extends  over  an  area, 
with  a  radius  of  fifteen  miles  from  Charing  Cross,  688.31 
square  miles,  exclusive  of  the  "city  of  London." 

The  population  used  in  the  curve  of  growth  is  that 
included  in  the  registrar-general's  area,  or  "Registration 
London,"  which  embraces  what  is  called  "Water  Lon- 
don," as  it  is  the  620  sc[uare  miles  of  area  supplied  by 
the  eight  metropolitan  w^ater  companies. 

It  is  almost  impossible  in  the  case  of  London,  as 
well  as  that  of  other  cities,  to  define  the  area  of  the 
metropolitan  population,  that  is,  the  population  of  the 
city  itself  and  of  the  suburban  districts  which  contain 
the  population  doing  business  in  the  city.  The  limits  of 
London  could  be  extended  far  beyond  those  of  the  reg- 
istrar-general, and  with  each  extension  a  much  different 
population  would  be  found  tq  exist.  To  compare,  per- 
haps, more  properly  with  the  other  cities  and  cover  the 
metropolitan  area,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  popu- 
lation supplied  by  the  London  water  companies  in  1892 
was  estimated  to  be  5,490,780,  and  this  population  was 
plotted  on  the  author's  diagram  of  1895.  In  1891  the 
population  of  "Greater  London"  (London  and  the  "outer 
ring")  was  5,633,806. 

Registration  London  is  (1900) 4.589,129 

Greater  London  "         "       6,652,145 

As  to  the  density  of  population,  that  of  the  White 
Chapel  district  is  taken  as  a  maximum,  being,  on  the 
357  acres  included,  at  the  rate  of  132,000  per  square  mile 
in  1891.  The  average  in  the  whole  of  London  is  37,000 
per  square  mile. 

In  the  way  of  further  explanations  it  should  be 
stated  that  "Greater  London"  is  the  area  included  within 
the  metropolitan  and  city  police  districts,  and  includes 
all  parishes  wholly  situate  within  a  circle  of  fifteen  miles' 
radius  from  Charing  Cross,  and  all  parishes  of  which 
any  part  is  included  within  a  circle  of  twelve  miles'  radius 
from  the  same  center.  Its  total  area  is  701  square 
miles,  and  its  population  in  1891  was  5,633,332.  (See 
"London  Water  Supply,"  a  paper  presented  to  the  So- 
ciety of  Arts,  April  19,  1899,  by  Walter  Hunter,  Esq., 
Member  Inst.  C.  E.) 

The  present  ratio  of  increase  per  decade  is  as 
follows  : 

Greater  London 20  per  cent. 

London 8.6  per  cent. 


GREATER   NEW   YORK. 

Tlie  curve  of  growth  of  this  great  city  of  the  United 
States  is  interesting,  first,  by  its  comparison  with  its 
neighbor,  Philadelphia.  The  curves  show  that  thev  kept 
pace  with  each  other  very  closely  from  the  vear  1  tOO  to 
1830,  when  pojndation  in  New  York  began  to  grow 
with  rai)id  strides  and  has  continued  to  clo  so  u])  to 
the  jjresent  time,  the  ratio  of  increase  being  greater  than 
that  of  any  other  large  city  in  the  world  except  Chicago. 
The  density  of  the  tenth  ward,  which  is  on  the  east 
side  of  the  city,  between  the  Brooklyn  Bridge  and  Grand 
Street,  is  greatest  of  any  in  the  world,  with  the  exception 
perhaps  of  a  certain  district  in  the  city  of  Prague,  and  it 
may  be  said  advisedly  that  Sanitary  District  A  of  the 
eleventh  ward  has  the  greatest  density  of  anv  corre- 
sponding area  of  the  world,  and  twice  that  of  Prague  in 
1893.  It  comprises  about  320  acres,  the  densitj^  in  1890 
ranged  from  600  to  1,000  inhabitants  per  a<-re,  or  an 
average  of  about  512,000  per  square  mile,  the  greatest 
densitv  being  640,000  per  square  mile.  The  total  popu- 
lation' in  1900  was  3,833,999.  The  present  ratio  of 
increase  per  decade  is  37  per  cent. 

PARIS. 

In  1860  the  area  of  Paris  was  considerably  extended 
by  taking  in  the  suburban  communes,  which  increased 
the  ])opulation  at  that  time  nearly  half  a  million.  The 
density  of  the  population  is  shown,  first,  by  taking  out 
the  squares,  or  greens  and  woods,  making  the  average 
in  1890  on  this  basis  121,300  per  square  mile  and  the 
area  22.4  square  miles.  The  average  of  the  entire  city, 
including  the  squares,  etc.,  was  79,500  per  square  mile, 
covering  thirty-one  square  miles.  The  curve  of  growth  of 
Paris  brings  out  several  interesting  and  important 
historical  points.  For  instance,  the  city,  as  is  w^ell  known, 
suffered  greatly  during  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Louis 
XVI.  and  during  the  Reign  of  Terror,  from  1774  to  1799, 
during  w^hich  period  the  population  actualW  decreased. 
On  the  other  hand,  under  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV. — 1643 
to  1715,  and  that  of  Louis  XV.,  1715  to  1754 — it  greatly 
prospered,  and  the  growth  in  the  latter  period  is  shown 
on  the  curve  as  having  a  regular  increase.  From  1852 
to  1870  the  Emperor  Louis  Napoleon  did  much  for 
Paris,  and  its  growth  was  very  rapid  and  comparatively 
uniform.  The  effect  upon  the  city  bv^  the  Franco-Prus- 
sian   war   and   the   Communes   is   shown   plainly   on   the 


10 

ciirv^e  of  growth.  The  population  of  Greater  Paris  in 
1901  was  3,599,991,  New  York  having  outstripped  it. 
The  present  ratio   of  increase  per  decade  is  18  per  cent. 

CHICAGO. 

This  city,  on  account  of  its  large  area  in  comparison 
with  the  population,  had,  in  1894-,  an  average  of  onW 
8,430  inhabitants  to  the  square  mile,  its  area  being  186 
square  miles.  In  arriving  at  the  population  for  1894, 
it  was  necessary  to  use  considerable  judgment  in  de- 
ciding which  census  should  be  employed.  There  had" 
been  estimates  made  of  over  2,000,000,  but  to  be  con- 
servative the  school  census  of  1894  was  used,  making 
the  population,  including  the  whole  of  Cook  County, 
1,692,727.  In  ascertaining  the  ratio  of  increase,  different 
results  are  obtained  by  using  different  methods  of  esti- 
mating the  population,  whether  by  the  United  States 
census  or  by  that  of  the  city.  The  increase  from  1880 
to  1890  by  the  United  States  census  was  118  per  cent. 
Comparing  the  United  States  census  of  1890  with  the 
school  census  of  1890  the  ratio  of  increase  per  decade 
was  106  per  cent.  If,  again,  we  compare  the  school 
census  of  1884  with  the  school  census  of  1894  we  have 
an   increase   of  150   per  cent,  per  decade. 

The  U.  S.  census  of  1900  revealed  the  fact  that  all 
the  approximate  figures  made  in  1894  from  various 
censuses  were  entirely  too  large.  The  population  in  1900 
was  1,838,735,  and  by  the  writer's  figures  1,692,727, 
in  1894,  both  embracing  the  whole  of  Cook  County, 
which  is  assumed  to  be  the  metropolitan  population. 
The  ratio  of  increase  per  decade  of  106.5  per  cent,  was 
excessive  and  led  to  an  erroneous  prediction  of  popula- 
tion in  the  future. 

The  actual  cate  of  growth  per  decade  based  on  the 
U.  S.  census  of  1890  and  that  of  1900  is  only  54  per 
cent.  However,  there  were  important  financial  condi- 
tions affecting  the  industrial  and  social  status  of  the 
city,  which  led  to  a  decrease  in  the  rate  of  increase  be- 
tween 1895  and  1900.  The  financial  crash  of  1893,  when 
the  Columbia  Bank  and  other  financial  institutions  and 
companies  and  private  individuals  went  to  the  wall,  had 
much  to  do  in  arresting  the  growth  of  the  city.  The 
results  of  this  local  as  well  as  national  and  interna- 
tional financial  depression  did  not  make  itself  felt  in  the 
population  until  about  1897  and  1898. 

Another  cause  had  much  to  do  with  the  decreased 
rate    of   growth,    and   that   was  the  industrial   reaction 


1 1 

after  the  World's  Fair  in  1893.  In  that  year,  and  for 
two  years  previous,  while  the  extensive  Exposition  prepa- 
rations were  going  on,  there  was  an  extraordinar3^  influx 
of  population  which  was  compelled  to  seek  other  parts  of 
the  country  at  the  close  of  the  great  fair. 

The  population  in  1900  by  the  U.  S.  census  was 
1,838,735. 

The  rate  of  growth  based  on  the  census  of  1890  and 
1900  is  54  per  cent. 

BERLIN. 

The  census  of  this  citj-  is  taken  every  year  and  has 
been  so  taken  since  the  year  1720.  Consecfuently,  the 
curve  of  growth  is  an  entirely  different  one  from  that 
of  almost  any  other  city,  as  the  points  in  drawing  the 
curve  are  much  nearer  together  on  the  diagram.  As  in 
the  city  of  Paris  diagram,  so  in  that  of  Berlin,  the  effects 
of  political  and  military  disturbance  in  the  kingdom  are 
plainly  seen.  The  seven  years'  war  from  1756  to  1763 
caused  a  decrease  in  the  population.  From  1800  to 
1810,  an  entire  decade,  there  is  again  a  steady  decrease, 
and  it  was  during  this  period  that  the  battles  of  Hohen- 
linden,  Jena,  Auerstadt,  Eylau  and  Friedland  were  fought 
with  the  French.  By  the  peace  of  Tilsit  at  the  end  of 
this  period,  Prussia  lost  one-half  of  her  possessions  and 
kept  the  other  half  under  A'erj^  hard  conditions.  In 
1871  the  King  of  Prussia  was  proclaimed  Emperor  of 
Germany,  and  Berlin  became  the  seat  of  the  empire. 
From  that  time  the  growth  has  been  very  rapid,  the 
ratio  of  increase  from  1883  to  1893,  the  period  of 
maximum  increase,  being  37  per  cent. 

In  density  Berlin  stands  next  to  Paris,  the  maximum 
density  in  1893  being  92,600  per  square  mile  and  the 
average  density  67,612,  with  an  area  of  24.3  square  miles. 

Supplementing  the  explanations  already  given  in 
regard  to  Berlin,  the  population  in  1890  of  Berlin  proper 
was  1,884,157,  and  of  Greater  Berlin,  including  the 
twelve  districts  above  mentioned,  2,512,525.  And  the 
present  rate  of  increase  is  respectively  12  per  cent,  and 
19  per  cent. 

The  difference — Berlin  and  Greater  Berlin — is  not  as 
great  as  that  between  London  and  Greater  London, 
but  still  both  show  the  effect  of  urban  and  interurban 
rapid  transit  hj  underground,  overground  and  surface 
lines. 

It  is  safe  to  predict  that  the  further  extensions  of 
those  lines  and  the  quickening  of  the  speed  will  make 


1^ 

the  growth  of  the  Greater  City  in  both  cases  mnch  more 
rapid  in  the  future  than  at  present.  The  author  is  of 
the  opinion  that  the  improvements  and  extensions  con- 
templated in  London  by  American  railway  projectors 
and  capitalists  will  effect  a  great  change  in  the  methods 
of  growth  of  population. 

VIENNA. 

The  accessible  records  of  population  of  this  city  are 
very  incomplete  and  the  curve  of  population  is  made 
from  comparatively  few  dates.  The  authorities  differ 
considerably  as  to"  the  population.  The  fact  that  the 
garrison  of  the  city  is  constantly  changing  vitiates  the 
censas  records. 

It  is  impracticable  to  secure  census  returns  later 
than  1899.  The  population  was  then  1,617,160,  to 
which  should  be  added  a  permanent  garrison  of  22,651 
soldiers,  making  a  total  of  1,639.811.  The  population 
in  1894  on  the  same  basis  was  1,480,572.  The  rate 
of  increase  is  11  per  cent. 

PI-ITLADELPHIA. 

There  is  nothing  particularly  striking  in  regard  to 
the  curve  of  this  city.  It  shows  a  gradual  growth  and 
verv  regular.  The  density  of  population  is  very  nearly 
like  that  of  Chicago,  being  8,091  per  square  mile  on  F.n 
area  of  129  square  miles.  The  population,  which  in- 
cludes Camden,  N.  J.,  which  is  really  a  part  of  the  metro- 
poHtan  population  of  Philadelphia,  is  1,369,632.  The 
rate  of  increase  is  23  per  cent. 

ST.  PETERSBURG. 

The  effect  of  the  founder,  Peter  the  Great,  upon  the 
inception  of  this  city  and  its  growth  during  two  decades 
is  plainly  seen  at  the  origin  of  the  curve.  In  fact,  it  is 
generally  known  that,  when  it  was  founded  in  1703, 
compulsory  means  were  employed  by  him  to  increase 
the  population  to  100,000.  Under  Elizabeth,  from  1741 
to  1762,  it  reached  150,000,  and  under  Catherine  II., 
1762  to  1796,  it  reached  nearly  300,000.  One  disturbing 
feature  exists  in  the  census  estimates,  in  that  the  city  has  a 
much  larger  population  in  the  winter  than  in  the  summer, 
as  is  well  known.  The  curve  of  growth  includes  this 
winter  population  and  also  the  immediate  suburbs,  the 
object  being  to   arrive   at   the   metropolitan   population. 


i:5 

In  reference  to  tlie  density  of  ])opnlati()n,  the  most  thicklv 
settled  ward  has  50, ()()()  inhabitants,  or  at  the  rate  of 
113,636  per  square  mile,  and  the  most  thickly  settled 
district  in  that  ward  had  a  population  of  227^276  per 
square  mile  in  1894-.  The  average  for  the  whole  city  on 
an  area  of  350  square  miles  was  at  the  rate  of  28,260 
per  square  mile.  The  population  in  1897,  the  latest 
year  available,  was  1,132,677.  In  1890  it  was  954-,400. 
The  rate  of  increase  is  15Mj  per  cent,  per  decade. 

Recapitulating  the  statement  in  regard  to  ratio  of 
increase  at  present  in  the  several  cities  above  noted,  the 
following  summary  is  given  : 

Present  ratio  of  increase,  London 8.6 

Greater  London  20.0 

"  "  Greater  New  York 37.0 

"  "  Manhattan  Borough 29.0 

"  "  Paris  (Greater) 18.0 

Chicago  54.0 

"  "  Berlin 12.0 

"  "  Greater  Berlin  19.0 

.    "  "  Philadelphia  23.0 

St.  Petersburg 15.5 

"  Vienna  11.0 

Although  the  diagram  exhibits  more  effective^  the 
density  of  population,  the  following  figures  will  shov\^  the 
basis  on  which  the  graphical  squares  are  drawn  : 

NEW  YORK,  maximum  density,  630,740  per  square  mile 

on  3.6  acres. 
Average   maximum  density,  480,000  per  square  mile 

on  320  acres. 
Average  density  New  York   Cit3'  proper,    40,000   per 

square  mile  on  37  square  miles. 

LONDON,  maximum  density,  132,000  per  square  mile  on 
357  acres. 
Average  density  (Registration   London)    37,000   per 
square  mile  on  117  square  miles. 

PARIS,   average  density,    79,300  per  square  mile  on  31 
square  miles. 

ST.    PETERSBURG,     maximum    density,     227,276    per 
square  mile. 
Maximum  density  ward,  113,636  per  square  mile. 
Average  density,  28,260  per  square  mile  on  35  square 
miles. 


14 

BERLIN,  maximum  density,  92,600  per  square  mile. 
Average  density,  67,612   per  scpiare  mile;    area    23.4 
square  miles. 

PHILADELPHIA,    average    density,    8,091    per    square 
mile;  area  129  square  miles. 

CHICAGO,  average  density,  8,430  per  square  mile;  area 
186  square  miles. 

As  the  number  of  houses  and  the  numl^er  of  inhabi- 
tants per  house  have  much  to  do  with  the  density  of 
population,  the  following  items  are  of  considerable  in- 
terest:  New  York,  in  1894,  had  15,000  houses  averag- 
ing eighteen  residents.  London,  600,000  houses  averag- 
ing seven  residents;  at  the  beginning  of  this  century  it 
had  only  130,000  houses.  Paris  had  90,000  houses; 
at  the  close  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war  it  had  70,000, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  it  had  only 
23,000.  The  average  number  of  residents  in  a  Paris 
house  was  twenty-five,  40  per  cent,  greater  than  in  New- 
York.  The  most  of  the  public  and  office  buildings  in 
Paris  are  utilized  for  residence  purposes,  whereas  in  New 
York  most  of  the  buildings  in  the  downtown  district  are 
used  entirely  for  business  purposes.  Taking  a  square 
mile  of  territory  between  Wall  and  Spruce  streets  and 
between  Broadway  and  the  East  River  there  was,  at 
an  election  a  few  years  ago,  only  430  voters,  representing 
a  total  population  of  about  1 ,  750.  The  unoccupied  spaces 
in  parks,  gardens  and  lawns  in  Philadelphia  is  seen  from 
the  fact  that,  while  its  population  was  only  about 
1,000,000  in  1890,  it  had  187,000  houses  and  an  aver- 
age density  of  8,091  per  square  mile. 

The  facts  on  the  diagram  offer  material  for  interesting 
study;  such  as  the  influence  of  national  life  upon  urban 
growth,  especially  upon  that  of  these  principal  cities; 
the  serious  effect  of  war  upon  the  grow-th  of  cities;  the 
remarkable  change  going  on  in  these  countries  by  which 
the  great  cities  are  pushing  upward  their  curves  of 
growth;  and,  what  is  perhaps  of  greater  interest  still, 
the  quite  close  approximation  that  it  is  possible  to  make 
of  the  time  when  some  of  the  curves  will  intersect  and 
the  rank  in  population  be  changed,  some  outstripping 
others  and  some  falling  behind  their  more  prosperous 
competitors. 

An  approximate  estimate  may  at  least  be  hazarded. 


)5 

])re(lictin<i;  tlic  ])()])iilati()n  of  tlic  litios  \inder  considcr.'i- 
tion  at  tlic  end  ot  future  decades. 

Certain  important  possible  changes  in  conditions 
need,  however,  to  be  considered  in  forecasting  such  re- 
sults, among  which  are,  first,  the  changes  which  new 
m.ethods  of  transportation  may  bring  about,  either  tak- 
ing people  more  cpiickly  and  cheaply  into  cities,  or  out 
of  them  into  more  distant  districts  now  open  areas  or 
sparsely  settled  country.  Second,  the  congesting  or 
overcrowdin;j;  of  city  areas  making  them  too  dense  for 
comfort  or  health.  These  two  conditions  are  already 
producing  changes  of  magnitude  in  popidation.  London 
is  an  instance  of  these  effects  or  of  some  others  possi- 
bly; several  of  the  central  districts,  instead  of  showing 
an  increase,  showed  actual  decrease  in  the  last  two  cen- 
sus epochs. 

Tt  is  difficult  to  predict  now  what  change  will  take 
place  in  New  York  during  the  succeeding  decades  by  the 
contemplated  transportation  changes,  such  as  the  open- 
ing of  the  new  bridges  over  the  East  River,  the  probable 
completion  of  the  old  Hudson  River  Tunnel,  the  con- 
struction of  the  Rapid  Transit  Subway  lines,  the  electri- 
fying of  the  Manhattan  Elevated  and  the  extension  of 
electric  lines  into  the  suburbs,  and  particularly  by  the 
construction  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railway's  proposed 
tunnel  under  the  rivers  and  New  York,  connecting  New 
Jersey  and  Long  Island  with  the  central  district  of  New 
York  Cit\',  and  additional  facilities  for  handling  pas- 
sengers at  the  Grand  Central  Depot  and  transferring 
them  to  the  Subway. 

In  1895  the  author  was  in  some  cases  led  astray  by 
the  erroneous  population  estimates,  as  already  stated, 
and  his  prediction  for  1900  based  on  them  and  the  ratio 
of  increase  which  showed  was  far  from  correct.  The 
causes  above  stated,  which  arrested  the  growth  of  Chi- 
cago, had  not  shown  their  influence  upon  population  in 
1895. 

Berlin  may  be  expected  to  grow  quite  rapidly  for  at 
least  two  decades  more.  As  the  seat  of  a  comparatively 
new^  empire,  it  is  still  young,  strong,  vigorous  and  am- 
bitious. 

And  in  addition  to  all  other  reasons  for  the  contin- 
uance in  rapid  growth  of  the  above  mentioned  cities, 
there  must  be  taken  into  account  that  of  the  modern 
tendency  to  gravitate  to  great  centers  of  population, 
which  modern  methods  of  transportation  have  ac- 
celerated. 

Even  with  the  above  problematic  conditions  disturb- 


IG 

ing  the  future,  there  is  sufficient  ground  on  which  to 
rest  a  i^rediction  of  population,  which  the  author  had  the 
temerity  to  make  first  in  1895. 

He  presents  this  table  again,  with  the  actual  popula- 
tion as  given  above,  placed  in  juxtaposition  to  his  pre- 
dicted population  : 

Estimated         Actual         Estimated         Estimated 
for  1900.  1900.  for  1910.  for  11120. 

Greater  London G,-A96,000     6,052,145  7,4-90,400  8,516,256 

London  4,599,800     4,589,129  4,967,784  5,315,528 

New  York   (Greater)   ..      3,900,000     3,833,999  4,953,000  6,191,250 

Paris  2,697,300+2,660,559  2,967,030  3,234,063 

Greater  Paris +3,599,991  4,139,990  4,759,589 

Berlin  2,101,400     1,884,157  2,731,820  3,496,729 

Greater  Berlin 2,512,523  2,914,517  3,322,549 

*Greater  Chicago  2,400,000     1,838,735  2,574,229  3,475,209 

Philadelphia 1,414,500     1,369,632  1,697,400  2,002,932 

St.  Petersburg  1,185,600  i  1,132,677  1,339,728  1,500,495 

*Note. — Chicago.  The  erroneous  estimates  of  population  in  1894 
require  revision  of  prediction. 

+  Population  1901. 

:[;  Actual  population  1897. 

The  author  has  endeavored,  under  difficult  conditions 
and  by  considerable  correspondence,  to  obtain  from 
time  to  time  the  population  and  other  features  of  the 
growth  of  cities  of  over  one  million  population,  hoping 
that  the  figures  would  be  of  use  in  solving  some  of  the 
important  transportation,  economic  and  social  problems 
of  these  great  masses  of  humanity. 

It  will  be  necessary,  in  1910,  to  increase  not  only  the 
population  of  cities  now  discussed,  but  add  several  to  the 
list;  no  doubt  one  or  two  cities  of  Great  Britain  and 
some  in  this  country,  like  Boston,  and  also  Buenos  Aires, 
which  expects  a  population  of  over  a  million  in  1906 
or  1907. 

ELMER  L.  CORTHELL,  Sc.  D. 

1  Nassau  Street,  New  York, 
December,  1902. 


UNIVERSITY  O^^^^^jY 

J    V  from  which  borrowed. 

...!r::rtr..aa..a»peahao«. 


This  hook  is 


^^OoV 


'At.' 


SDec'58AR) 


VJ> 


r...-l00r>.-9-47CA5702sl6)476_ 


SloclcloB,  Calif. 


M5e89836 


H  I' 


a)4=>i 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


